Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

The House | Bat-bashing was a betrayal

Published

on

Bat-bashing was a betrayal - it's time to draw red lines in the fight to protect nature
Bat-bashing was a betrayal - it's time to draw red lines in the fight to protect nature

Flock of oystercatchers, Jon Sparks/Alamy


4 min read

Polling is rarely fun reading for Labour MPs at the moment, but a new poll last month proved particularly deflating.

Advertisement

It went beyond simply confirming the public’s overwhelming support for nature restoration – with 8 in 10 people saying it is an important priority for them personally. It also revealed that a resounding 6 in 10 believe the Government cares less about restoring nature than they do.

It wasn’t meant to be this way. I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that recognised nature loss to be one of our greatest challenges, promising ‘to restore and protect our natural world’.  Over the course of 2025, this promise seemed forgotten.

Ministers have too often reached for easy scapegoats – blaming bats and newts for a lack of economic growth. Rather than confronting the reality of a broken model that rewards asset ownership over productive work, and an economy built to reward financial speculation and the extraction of value over the workers who create it.

In the absence of evidence for these claims, ministers resorted to a steady drumbeat of anti-nature rhetoric. In doing so, goodwill from millions of nature lovers across the country was needlessly eroded.

Advertisement






The views of well-funded lobbyists, keen to cut corporate costs through deregulation, seemed to carry more weight than the concern of millions of voters that, with each passing year, they were seeing less wildlife in gardens, parks and rivers.

This is why I kickstarted the Red Lines for Nature campaign this winter: to get Britain’s nature- loving majority off the backfoot and to break the doom-loop of the constant attacks on our wildlife habitats.

The campaign calls for an end to attempts to weaken environmental protections and environmental bodies. These are the red lines which, if passed, will accelerate nature decline towards the point of no return.

Advertisement

Crossing these red lines would signal a calamitous broken promise for our Labour Government, situating itself on the wrong side of a nature-loving electorate, and a disaster for the ecosystems we all need to survive.

It has been galvanising to see the nature sector rally so decisively around the Red Lines campaign; with dozens of organisations’ signing up; and ever-increasing support from colleagues on the backbenches in Westminster.

It’s no coincidence that our bold demand of a fully funded nature recovery plan has coincided with a welcome change in approach: both in language and actions from the government.

The tedious bat-bashing of 2025 has vanished from ministerial speeches and 2024 promises to save nature have returned.

Advertisement

Damaging proposals to gut nature protections, recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Review, have been dropped. And Defra has announced a series of ambitious nature recovery policies, including the largest ever government investment in threatened species; supporting iconic birds like turtle doves and oystercatchers, as well as the reintroduction of golden eagles to England offering the hope of a trophic cascade that restores long-degraded ecosystems as their apex predators soar back into place.

This shows that when we are united, bold and clear in our demands, we can win. It is vital that we maintain the pressure through the Red Lines for Nature campaign across all its layers of support – from environmental organisations and their mass memberships to the nature-loving public, and its allies in Parliament.

In doing so, we can move beyond winning individual skirmishes and instead make it clear that the protection of nature is not, and should never have been, up for debate.

This policy shift has come just in time. Recent weeks have emphasised how important it is to prepare for future economic disruption, and to make sure the UK is well-prepared to weather economic storms. Nature-loss is the economic disruption we can see coming over the horizon. In January Defra published a new security assessment warning that ‘global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity’. We need to get ahead of this gathering crisis, by helping nature recover before it’s too late.

Advertisement

This is why colleagues and I, along with MPs from other parties, will be gathering in Westminster to hear the latest from nature experts about the scale of species loss, and what more needs to be done to halt it. We still have time, just, to back away from the red lines and to act on the priorities of the wildlife-loving British public.

The renewal of our nation’s squandered natural wealth could be the common endeavour that finally instils some optimism and unity into our politics, at a time when we all need hope. After all, More in Common polling for the National Trust found that nature is a major source of pride for the public, second only to the NHS.

Building on the recent policy shift to deliver an ambitious nature recovery plan would be hugely popular and would bring people together. This spring, its time embrace the pride and positivity of restoring nature, for everyone.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

The House | As the first MP to be deepfaked, I say we must do more to protect our democracy from AI harm

Published

on

As the first MP to be deepfaked, I say we must do more to protect our democracy from AI harm
As the first MP to be deepfaked, I say we must do more to protect our democracy from AI harm


3 min read

Imagine discovering that your face, your voice, or your image has been used online by a third party, without your consent, to seriously misrepresent you. Not a misunderstanding.

Advertisement

Not a parody. A fabricated version of you – saying things you never said, doing things you never did, appearing in content you never agreed to.

AI deepfake technology means this is no longer the realm of science fiction – it is already happening. As the first MP to be the target of a deepfake political disinformation attack, I’ve seen first-hand the disruption it can cause our democracy.

In 2022, as minister for AI and the Intellectual Property Office, I rejected tech sector lobbying for broad text and data mining freedoms after hearing from the APPG for the Creative Industries. Without safeguards, such changes would have undermined the rights of musicians, writers and artists in a sector worth £146bn a year. If the UK is to lead in both AI and the creative industries, the burden must be on AI to show it can coexist – an unchecked ‘free-for-all’ serves neither.

I therefore welcome the government’s recent proposal to revisit digital copyright law, and its recognition that policy “must support prosperity for all UK citizens”. But this is not only about prosperity. It is also about ensuring AI is not used to undermine our democracy, security, society or fundamental rights.

Advertisement

Having spent 30 years in technology and innovation, and as the founder of one of the UK’s earliest AI drug discovery companies in 2001, I fully recognise the transformative potential to deliver enormous economic and public service benefits.

The UK already has the third-largest AI sector globally and the largest in Europe, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that AI adoption could increase UK productivity growth by around £55bn a year. But harnessing innovation requires regulation. As I set out in the 2021 prime minister’s Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, the UK as a trusted regulator has a chance to lead in setting appropriate regulatory standards in new markets from AI to fusion energy and space debris.

With the rapid dissemination of deepfake tools allowing someone’s identity to be stolen and misused by anyone, we should establish a fundamental right to identity protection in the digital age.

Recent evidence from the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee highlighted the scale of the challenge. When questioned, the big tech platforms showed little sense of responsibility for protecting UK values, democratic norms or citizens’ rights. By allowing US and Chinese tech dominance – controlled by a small group with limited accountability – we risk outsourcing digital sovereignty and undermining UK values, conventions and laws.

Advertisement

Other countries are beginning to act. Denmark has proposed strengthening protections over individuals’ likenesses in its copyright framework. In the US, some states are proposing new laws to prevent the unauthorised use of AI-generated digital replicas.

The tech industry is pushing back with a new pro-AI group, Innovation Council Action, supporting candidates and policies in US elections that oppose AI regulation. They have the support of Donald Trump’s adviser David Sacks, and plan to spend at least $100m on backing candidates. This comes on top of nearly $325m already raised by other pro-AI organisations and individuals.

Parliament now faces a choice: lightly regulate AI, or set clear, values-based rules to prevent it undermining our democracy, society and economy. Legislating to protect UK citizens, society, economy and democracy from the widespread abuse of identity theft is a good place to start. 

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Reform pledges 400,000 deportations, which is easy to do when you don’t know what money is

Published

on

Reform Farage

Reform Farage

In the latest instalment of Reform’s performative posturing on immigration, the far-right populist party has pledged to review all asylum claims from the last five years. They’re claiming that a Reform government would deport anyone who claimed asylum after arriving in the UK on a visa.

We’ll leave aside for a moment the absolutely dire racism and xenophobia of any Reform ‘promise’. That’s basically a given at this point.

Rather, this proposal is bloody ridiculous on a purely practical level – and it illustrates one of the many (many) massive problems with these authoritarian jerks.

Time and again, Reform have showed that it can’t handle even the basics of public finance. Now, they’ve come out with a completely un-costed, eye-wateringly complex pledge that would break the immigration system.

Advertisement

A further 400,000 imaginary deportations from Reform

Under Reform’s latest ridiculous proposal, around 400,000 would be eligible for deportation. According to the BBC’s reporting, the reviews would target anyone who has asylum status, has overstayed a visa, or is from “a country deemed safe by a Reform-led government”.

This would be on top of the 600,000 deportations over 5 years that Reform previously pledged. The majority of this figure would be made up of people who arrived on small boats – a crisis which was itself caused by Nigel Farage and the other Leavers’ half-baked Brexit.

In order to carry out its draconian immigrant bashing, Reform have stated that they would withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

To be clear, the ECHR does very little to prevent any member state from deporting people, except in exceptional circumstances like a risk of torture. However, what the ECHR does do is protect our basic human rights, including the right to life, freedom of thought, and ability to vote – which shows where Reform’s priorities lie.

Advertisement

Zia Yusuf

In a typically rambling Twitter post, Zia Yusuf laid out some further ‘details’ of his party’s proposals. Yusuf calls himself the ‘shadow home secretary’, although Reform is 108 seats short of granting him that particular title.

Given that he doesn’t even know his own job, it’s unsurprising that the announcement was similarly half-baked:

Anyone who broke into the country illegally, or came in on a visa and overstayed to claim asylum (which is almost all of them) will have their status revoked and be deported.

This is an addition to all those currently in Britain illegally.

For years now, Britain has been suffering from a real-time invasion.

Advertisement

We barely even know where to start with this one. There’s the “broke in” phrasing, as though Dover has fucking double-glazing all round it. “Real-time invasion” also gets an honorable mention – as opposed to what exactly?

Then there’s the threat to remove anyone who arrived illegally, in addition to “all those currently in Britain illegally.” That’s typical Reform-brand efficiency for you.

Yusuf also stated that Reform would follow the US example of building “modular” detention facilities to hold 22,500 people before deportation. To be clear, the US facilities are concentration camps in all but name.

As of the most recent data from mid-2024, the UK’s immigration detention capacity stood at around 2,200 spaces. Even then, the government has been forced to use spaces like hotels, which weren’t built for purpose.

Advertisement

Reform, however, believes it can expand that capacity by ten times within 18 months. This is the same party that can’t even manage the logistics of local government, or their own tax returns.

The asylum caseload

Context is important here. Reform are proposing to review thousands of asylum caseswhen the review system itself is well past breaking point.

For example, Labour recently stated that it would review asylum seekers’ status once every 30 months. Like Reform, they also stated that this would apply retrospectively for the last 5 years. However, research from the Refugee Council stated that this would be “unworkable and extremely costly”:

the Home Office would be required to conduct between 1.66 million and 1.9 million reviews of refugee status over the first decade. This would result in a total cost of between £1.1 billion and £1.27 billion, depending on how many people lose their protection at review.

The backlog of asylum cases has quadrupled since 2014. The most recent figures from December 2025 show that 48,700 people were still waiting for an initial decision. Likewise, a March 2026 government briefing stated that:

Advertisement

As of June 2024, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload, which includes cases awaiting an appeal outcome and unsuccessful applicants subject to removal from the UK, consisted of 224,700 cases. Of these, 39% of cases were awaiting an initial decision and 61% had received an initial refusal and were awaiting some kind of further action.

In part, this is because applicants are waiting longer for an initial decision on their case. However, the UK government has also stated that the number of ‘removal actions’ (deportations) is also causing the number to spike.

‘Impractical farce’ from Reform

Given this dire context, it’s no wonder that the Lib Dems have already branded Reform’s pledge an “impractical farce”. Even the Tories called it a copy of their own policy “but without the detail”. For once, we’ve got to agree there – same racism, but with even less pretense to basic basic financial literacy.

Reform’s naked racism, xenophobia and bigotry is reason enough to dismiss any of their posturing immigration policies.

However, with the relentless focus on the fact that they’re a party of bottom-feeding scum, it’s easy to overlook the fact that they’re also pathetic failures of politicians who couldn’t even run a fucking church fête.

Advertisement

Any reporting which fails to ask Reform ‘How do you plan to pay for this rubbish?’ is collusion, at this point.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Time to talk tax: the cumulative burden on business

Published

on

Time to talk tax: the cumulative burden on business
Time to talk tax: the cumulative burden on business

New analysis from the Mineral Products Association shows the tax burden on essential minerals producers has significantly increased, but has the weight become too much to bear?

With the UK tax burden at historic highs and demand for materials at historic lows, the mineral products sector is at risk of a business confidence and investment crisis. Substantial tax increases and increasing regulatory costs, set against the backdrop of low construction activity and demand, increase the sector’s concern about remaining competitive.

Advertisement

Mineral products are the foundation of the UK’s built environment. Our materials – aggregates, concrete, asphalt, cement, lime and a wide range of other minerals – are essential for the delivery of homes, buildings and infrastructure, and critical to other industries – steel, glass, ceramics, paper, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and food production. This range of activity in our sector exposes us to multiple layers of taxation and cost.

Until 2022, the tax burden on business was broadly stable compared to the previous five years. However, rapid-fire changes since then are resulting in significantly higher costs, with the combined tax burden expected to have risen by just under 30 per cent (26-29 per cent) since that time. For many of our members, in a time of sustained market weakness, this weight is becoming intolerable.

The largest tax burden increase has been in business rates, up 58 per cent compared to 2021/22. As with other businesses, rates are a significant fixed cost for industrial sites. Recent revaluations and changes to the multipliers structure have led to significant increases in liabilities for minerals products sites.

Advertisement

Cement works face the largest increase in their rates, at approximately £38,000 per plant. This is at a time when cement production is at its lowest since 1950, and low sales are being undercut by cheap and carbon-intensive foreign imports. Cement, the main ingredient in concrete, is vital for delivering the government’s growth and infrastructure plans, as well as achieving their industrial ambitions.

The sector has also endured hefty rises in more specific taxes that fewer sectors are exposed to. With heavy plant and vehicles for transportation being essential, the combined effect of the end of red diesel and the scheduled removal of the 5ppl duty cut has resulted in a significant rise in fuel costs. With an effective duty rate change of 54 per cent per litre, this will cost the industry £48m in extra duty a year.

Increased costs without market improvements are a direct threat to the long-term viability of mineral products businesses. They are facing the difficult decisions that could result in a permanent reduction in the capacity of the UK to supply itself with essential construction materials. Not only will we lose production capacity in minerals, but we will also lose sites and jobs. That will hamper economic recovery in the short term and growth and investment into the future.

Businesses in our sector directly employ 89,000 people and support 3.4m jobs in the supply chain. The pressure from a rising tax burden threatens these jobs, deters investment and could even undermine the future supply of essential domestic minerals. This will all affect the wider UK economy.

Advertisement

While rapid tax increases impact all industries, the burden on the mineral products sector will have a lasting effect on the country’s infrastructure and housebuilding goals. Caught under the combined weight of an increasing tax burden and falling demand for materials, our foundational industry needs reinforcement to ensure we can meet future material demand from domestic sources.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | Illegal operators now account for almost half of all UK gambling advertising spend, with that share set to become the majority within two years

Published

on

Illegal operators now account for almost half of all UK gambling advertising spend, with that share set to become the majority within two years
Illegal operators now account for almost half of all UK gambling advertising spend, with that share set to become the majority within two years

Grainne Hurst, CEO

As MPs gather this week to debate gambling advertising, the real issue is not how much advertising there is, but who is behind it

Advertisement

Britain is now on course to reach a tipping point where illegal operators overtake licensed firms in advertising spend, fundamentally reshaping what consumers see.  

New independent analysis from WARC, the global marketing intelligence firm, reveals that unregulated firms now account for close to half of all UK gambling advertising spend, and on current trends are set to become the majority within two years. WARC is also the source of the widely cited near £2bn gambling advertising figure used in media coverage, providing a consistent and authoritative picture of the market. 

According to WARC, the total UK advertising market is forecast to reach £1.9bn by October 2026. But that figure masks what is really happening.  

Licensed operators are reducing their advertising, with spend expected to fall by 9.2 per cent this year to £1.1bn. Meanwhile, the harmful unregulated sector is expanding rapidly, with spend projected to grow by 32 per cent and exceed £1bn within two years.  

Advertisement

On current trends, by 2028, unregulated and illegal betting and gaming advertising is expected to account for the majority of total spend, overtaking licensed operators. This should serve as a wake-up call to policymakers across the House. Just a few years ago, licensed operators accounted for more than 80 per cent of gambling advertising spend. That share has now fallen to just over half and is projected to drop below 50 per cent within the next two years.  

The direction of travel is clear: regulated firms are scaling back their advertising, while the harmful black market grows rapidly. That should give policymakers pause. 

Advertising is simply how operators compete for customers. The real issue is whether that competition is happening within the regulated market or being captured by the illegal black market. Within the regulated market, there are enforceable standards: age verification, safer gambling tools, self-exclusion schemes, and clear accountability. 

Advertisement

But the regulated sector is under increasing pressure. New tax changes, which make Britain one of the most heavily taxed betting and gaming jurisdictions in the world, and the current proposed financial risk assessment regime are adding cost and complexity. 

That pressure is set to increase further. The industry has already committed to removing betting sponsors from the front of Premier League shirts from next season, a step we support as part of raising standards. But as visible, regulated advertising reduces, demand does not disappear. It shifts into less regulated channels, where illegal operators are already growing rapidly. This is already visible in football, with only 3 of the 11 Premier League front-of-shirt betting sponsors holding a full UK Gambling Commission licence. 

That shift is happening across the advertising landscape, but it is most visible in digital channels, where unregulated operators are particularly active and enforcement is most challenging.  

WARC’s analysis shows digital channels now dominate gambling advertising, with search and online display accounting for the largest share of spend.  

Advertisement

Online and social media are more likely to reach under-18s than traditional broadcast media, making those protections harder to apply in practice. 

Unregulated operators are not bound by UK standards. They do not carry out the same age checks or safer gambling measures, contribute to tax, sport or research, and often operate outside the reach of UK enforcement. 

By contrast, the regulated betting and gaming sector supports 109,000 jobs, contributes £6.8bn to the UK economy and raises £4bn in tax each year. It is a significant British industry, generating growth, investment and employment across the country. 

Yet the harmful black market is becoming an increasingly visible part of the advertising landscape. 

Advertisement

The question is not simply whether there should be less advertising, but whether it is being driven by the regulated market or the illegal one. 

Focusing on licensed operators is the wrong approach. It will not reduce advertising and risks driving further growth in the illegal market.  

If current trends continue, Britain will soon reach a point where most gambling advertising no longer comes from within the regulated system. 

That is not a safer market. It is one where consumers are exposed to operators with no safeguards, no accountability, and no protections.  

Advertisement

The government must now go further and faster, building on its new black market taskforce and £26m in additional funding to the Gambling Commission to tackle it, to clamp down on illegal operators flooding advertising channels before they overwhelm the regulated market. 

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Council by-election results from yesterday and forthcoming contests

Published

on

Leicestershire – Narborough & Whetstone

Reform UK 1,033 (33.0 per cent, -9.3 on 2025) Conservatives 927 (29.6 per cent, +5.1) Green Party 884 (28.2 per cent, +13.4) Lib Dems 134 (4.3 per cent, -3.6) Labour 124 (4.0 per cent, -4.8) Advance UK 28 (0.9 per cent, +0.9)

Reform UK hold

Advertisement

Northumberland – Cramlington South West

Conservatives 278 (34.2 per cent, +9.0 on 2025) Reform UK 212 (26.1 per cent, -13.3) Labour 187 (23.0 per cent, -5.8) Green Party 116 (14.3 per cent, +14.3) Independent 13(1.6 per cent, +1.6) Lib Dems 7 (0.9 per cent, +0.9)

Conservatives gain from Reform UK 

Forthcoming contests

Advertisement

April 22nd

  • Salford – Barton and Winton. (Labour held)

April 23rd

  • Cornwall – Newquay Porth & Tretherras. (Reform UK held)

April 30th

  • Malvern Hills – Tenbury. (Conservative held)

May 21st

  • Dorset – Bridport. (Lib Dems held)
  • Fylde – Kirkham. (Independent held)
  • Lancaster – Castle. (Green Party held)
  • Malvern Hills – Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick – (Malvern Hills Independent held)

June 25th

  • Aberdeen – George St/Harbour. (Lib Dem held)

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Subtle Signs Of Boys Being Impacted By Manosphere: A Parent’s Story

Published

on

Mandy Hickson

After Louis Theroux’s latest documentary sparked a whole lot of conversation (and concern) over the growing popularity of ideologies shared by certain manosphere influencers, a parent has opened up about the subtle signs she noticed her sons were being influenced by such views years ago.

For those who haven’t come across the term, the manosphere is “a collection of websites, social media accounts and forums dedicated to men’s issues, from health and fitness to dating and men’s rights”, according to Robert Lawson, associate professor in sociolinguistics at Birmingham City University.

Yet it’s increasingly become associated with more extreme views – particularly anti-women and anti-feminist sentiments, as seen in Theroux’s documentary.

The impact of this kind of content is concerning – and parents and teachers are seeing it trickle down to school-age children. Not only can it impact the mental health of boys and men, per UN Women, but it amplifies harmful sexist stereotypes, teaches dangerous social and dating behaviour, and makes both digital and real-life spaces more hostile for women and girls.

Advertisement

Mandy Hickson, a former fast jet pilot who is now a motivational speaker, began to notice subtle changes in her two sons, then in their mid-teens, seven years ago “before figures like Andrew Tate [a self-proclaimed misogynist influencer] were widely known”.

Mandy Hickson

In an Instagram post, she noted their language, tone and the way they spoke about women gradually changed.

“We started to notice a shift in attitude rather than behaviour initially, with small comments that didn’t quite align with the values we’d brought them up with,” she tells HuffPost UK.

“For example, despite growing up in a home where both my husband and I worked equally and shared parenting responsibilities, they began questioning why I would ‘want’ to work at all.“

There were comments suggesting that a woman’s role should be at home, and that men should be the providers. This was particularly surprising given they had grown up seeing a strong female role model in me as a former fast jet pilot.”

Advertisement

At the same time, their views on success and self-worth were also shifting.

“They began making quite extreme statements about money and status,” says Hickson. “For example, suggesting that if they reached a certain age and didn’t have significant financial success or material markers like expensive cars, they would see themselves as failures.

“That kind of black and white thinking felt very out of character.”

What did she do to address this?

Advertisement

It wasn’t a case of simply shutting the conversation down. “It would have been easy to challenge or dismiss those views outright, but instead we tried to stay curious,” Hickson explains.

“We asked questions like ‘Where have you heard that?’ or ‘Why do you think that matters?’, creating space for discussion rather than confrontation.”

The couple also made a conscious effort to reinforce their own values – around respect, partnership, and the idea that success isn’t one dimensional – through everyday conversations. “It wasn’t about lecturing, but about consistently offering a broader perspective,” she adds.

Experts generally agree lecturing teenagers is not an effective strategy, and listening without judgment is often the key to getting them to open up.

Advertisement

Hickson notes she also began supporting her sons in develop critical thinking skills, particularly in terms of questioning the content they were consuming.

“Rather than banning platforms or individuals outright, we talked about how algorithms work, how certain voices can be amplified, and why extreme views often gain traction,” she says.

“That seemed to help them step back and question what they were seeing.”

She advises parents to look for small shifts in language and attitudes (some boys might start referring to girls as ‘females’, for example), not just behaviour.

Advertisement
  • Stay open and curious rather than immediately critical.
  • Keep communication lines open, even when what you’re hearing is uncomfortable.
  • Help your children question what they’re consuming, rather than simply trying to control it.
  • Model the values you want them to hold, because that consistency really matters over time.

“It’s not a quick fix, and I don’t think any parent gets it perfectly right, but staying engaged and present in those conversations is key,” she adds.

In her Instagram reel, she also suggested boys need to actively be shown positive male role models because otherwise “the algorithm will show them something else”.

“This isn’t about blaming boys, it’s about paying attention,” she ended. “Because I’ve seen how quickly it can happen and how quietly it can grow.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Tommy Robinson is selling ad space at his racist hate march

Published

on

Tommy Robinson with a sign behind him which reads 'your ad here'

Tommy Robinson with a sign behind him which reads 'your ad here'

In May this year, Tommy Robinson is holding a follow-up to his rancid ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally. The first event saw speakers calling for the deportation of the UK’s entire Black and Brown population. This year will no doubt see the same, and in Robinson’s eyes, that represents a marketing opportunity:

Remigration

Undercover recordings from the first Tommy Robinson Unite the Kingdom rally exposed protesters chanting with what can only be described as genocidal intent:

Advertisement

Honestly, ‘protesters’ doesn’t feel like the right word.

Advertisement

Much like with the Britain First rally which took place in Manchester on 18 April, a sizeable number of these people were absolutely shitfaced. ‘Revellers’ is a more accurate description, but the thing they’re revelling in is hatred.

Speakers at the first event included Generation Remigration. As we reported in September 2025:

Who are Generation Remigration, you might ask?

Well, they’re the leading proponents of ‘remigration’, which is the plan to mass deport migrants and their descendants from European countries. We’re not quite sure how that will work in Britain given the continuous influxes of populations we’ve experienced since the Roman Empire, except we are sure, obviously – they’re talking about deporting Black and brown people. Please feel free to explain to us how that isn’t racist, but maybe wait until tomorrow if you’re already ten beers in; you wouldn’t want to say something you regret.

Some of the attendees were clearly fantasists who hold a bleak and violent view of the world. This view is being amplified by grifters like Robinson who seek to profit from hatred:

Advertisement

Advertisement

And this year, ‘profit from hatred’ is clearly part of the Unite the Kingdom mission statement.

Put your ad here, says Tommy Robinson

In the video at the top, Tommy Robinson says:

Right, here’s an opportunity that I can’t believe people haven’t snapped up and we need you to snap it up because we need to put on a larger, bigger, more successful event than the 13th of September. That is advertisement.

We can believe no one has snapped it up, honestly, because most brands don’t hyper-target their products at racist shitheads.

Robinson continued:

Advertisement

We had 66 million people watch our last event in September. That’s just on our stream. Then we had 150 live streamers who were videoing every second of it as well. You have the opportunity to reach those people with your branding.

It’ difficult to think of a brand which would want to associate themselves with the scenes above.

Maybe Skittles could change their slogan to: ‘Skittles: Taste the Racism‘.

Probably not, right?

Failed Reform MP Matt Goodwin is still promoting his allegedly AI-written slop book – maybe he could take out an advert?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Back to Robinson:

Remember, we’ve shifted. People didn’t used to want to stand with us. Now we have politicians, we have celebrities, we have all different people. There’s been a mass shift. It’s now acceptable. Cancel culture has been defeated in this arena.

There was a period after Trump’s re-election when brands briefly pivoted towards racism. Most famously, the American company Target lost around 30% of its value after rolling back diversity initiatives.

Since all that, brands have avoided attaching themselves to mainstream right-wing politics. As such, they’ll definitely avoid pissed-up hate fests like Robinson’s festival of racism.

The ranks are revolting

As we reported on 19 April, some of Tommy Robinson’s minions are demanding that the upcoming Unite the Kingdom should be a more violent affair:

Advertisement

Of course, it makes sense for a movement like Robinson’s to become violent. The guy is talking about banishing a sizeable portion of the population, after all – something which couldn’t be achieved without oppression.

Advertisement

The reason why Tommy Robinson wants to keep it non-violent is clear; it’s because he’s got ad space to sell.

Featured image via YouTube

By Willem Moore

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Paid Period Leave Needs Broader Cultural Change To Work Well

Published

on

Paid Period Leave Needs Broader Cultural Change To Work Well

Expert comment from Dr Amanda Shea, who holds a PhD in molecular biology and has contributed to ovarian cancer research and is the fractional chief science officer at period and cycle tracker app Clue.

This January, a menstrual leave petition asking the government to “introduce statutory paid menstrual leave of up to three days per month for people with conditions such as endometriosis and adenomyosis” was launched.

It has since passed 100,000 signatures, and so has met the threshold for parliamentary debate.

The topic will be debated in Westminster Hall. Menstrual leave already exists in countries like Spain, Portugal, Taiwan, Zambia, and Vietnam.

Advertisement

But in, e.g., Spain, the law has “hardly been used”, The Guardian reports.

HuffPost UK spoke to Dr Amanda Shea, who holds a PhD in molecular biology and has contributed to ovarian cancer research, about how to make laws like these more effective.

The broader culture needs to change

Menstrual leave policies like those introduced in Spain and Portugal “appear progressive” and “mark an important step in acknowledging menstrual and reproductive health at policy level,” Dr Shea said.

Advertisement

“Yet early reports suggest uptake has been low, likely due at least in part to persistent stigma, fears around job security, and concerns around being seen as unreliable or unproductive.

“This raises the question: are these policies truly helpful, or are they symbolic gestures that signal progressiveness without addressing the deeper cultural changes that are needed?”

That’s not to say that paid menstrual leave couldn’t be beneficial. As Dr Shea told us, “Menstrual pain and related symptoms can be genuinely debilitating and they deserve to be taken seriously. For some, menstrual symptoms can significantly affect their ability to work, and time off may be necessary, just as it would be for any other health condition”.

Her workplace, Clue, already uses paid menstrual leave. It’s not about discouraging laws which could make the lives of those suffering from painful conditions easier.

Advertisement

Sarah Ottawa, the chief people officer at the company, said that the policy has gone down well with employees, adding that her team “were very intentional about making the policy clear and stigma-free”.

But, Dr Shea said, more broadly. “The reality is that culture needs to evolve to match the intent of the policy. Many people still don’t feel safe disclosing menstrual pain, let alone using menstrual-specific leave. Without strong protections against discrimination, clear leadership support, and more open conversations about menstruation, these policies risk falling short.

“Importantly, supporting menstrual and reproductive health will require more than a single policy. It calls for systemic change that includes better health education, more research into female-prevalent conditions and treatment options, and improved access to quality care.”

Not all people with period conditions have a diagnosis, and not all women’s health issues take the form of period conditions

Advertisement

Then, there’s the fact that paid period leave would only cover those with diagnosed conditions. We know that women’s health issues remain disproportionately ignored and undiagnosed.

“Workplace policies are just one part of the bigger picture, and when they focus solely on leave, or apply only to a narrow set of symptoms or diagnoses, they risk excluding many people, reinforcing that pain should be endured in private, and missing the wider challenges people face in managing their health.”

Take, for instance, PMDD, which can leave people in serious distress and is period-related but often happens days before menses begins. “People with autoimmune diseases like lupus or rheumatoid arthritis, digestive conditions like IBS, or menstrual migraines often experience symptom flare-ups during certain phases of the cycle,” the expert added.

“It’s also important to dispel the myth that all menstruators need leave. Most don’t experience severe symptoms, and policies should reflect that menstrual experiences vary widely. Often, more flexible and inclusive solutions – like the ability to work from home, adjust hours, or take time for medical appointments – can be more effective.”

Advertisement

Those needs often extend beyond periods to fertility treatments, miscarriage recovery, postpartum support, and perimenopause care, too.

How can paid period policy be most effective?

As we’ve said, paid menstrual leave can be a great step forward.

But to make it most effective, Clue’s reproductive health specialist, Eve Lepage, said: “A thoughtful menstrual leave policy would be one that recognises menstruation as a spectrum of experiences, from regular, manageable cycles to severely debilitating symptoms due to conditions like endometriosis, adenomyosis, or PMDD.

Advertisement

“It would offer flexible, non-discriminatory support.”

  • Leave it as an option, not a rule. People should be able to take time off when they need it, but it shouldn’t be assumed that everyone will or should.
  • No requirement for proof or disclosure. Many people never receive formal diagnoses, often because of barriers in the healthcare system. Requiring a doctor’s note just to access support can leave people behind.
  • Integration into broader wellness support. Menstrual leave should exist alongside things like flexible hours, remote work options, mental health days, and reproductive health leave, so it reflects the full range of cycle-related needs.
  • Education to reduce stigma. Workplace education should accompany the policy to challenge outdated views of menstruation as shameful or disruptive.
  • Inclusive language and design. Not all people who menstruate identify as women, and policies should reflect that.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Gen Z Habits That Stress Out Millennials

Published

on

"It’s hard to watch someone wear your old mistakes," said comedian Casey Balsham.

Gen Zers and millennials may technically be neighbors on the generational timeline, but culturally, they sometimes feel a universe apart.

From communication styles to news consumption to how they show up on social media, the two generations often approach the world in very different ways. And those differences can sometimes cause friction.

We asked millennials to share the Gen Z behaviours that stress them out. Of course, habits vary from person to person, but certain patterns and tendencies still emerge.

1. Recycling Our Bad Fashion Choices

Advertisement
“Bringing back the extremely troubling fashion that we buried in 2002. Girl, put away the puka shells. Last year, when long denim skirts with the slit in the front were back in stores, I cried. They are bad. They have always been bad. They will always be bad. It’s hard to watch someone wear your old mistakes.” ― comedian Casey Balsham

2. Misusing Therapy Speak And Self-Diagnosing

“I am a big fan of normalising mental health conversations and people having access to the help they need. In fact, I love that about Gen Z. But with access comes misusing and misinterpreting words, like ‘triggered’ or ‘narcissism,’ as well as a rise in self-diagnosis. As a psychiatrist, I regularly see people who think they have a condition because TikTok told them they do. I appreciate that they show up in my office and ask about it to learn more, because not everyone does that step, and that TikTok even informed them about a diagnosis that resonated to begin with ― but it can sometimes lead to hard conversations when I say, for example, that not all trouble concentrating is ADHD.” ― Dr. Jessi Gold, psychiatrist and chief wellness officer at the University of Tennessee System

3. The Gen Z Stare

“I have noticed that Gen Z struggles with basic in-person social skills and communication. They are digital natives and can struggle to translate those skills to in-person interactions. The term ‘Gen Z stare’ exists for a reason; it’s real.” ― political and news commentator Millennial Mia

Advertisement

4. Disregarding Their Surroundings

“Three words: choreography in public. Doing a full routine on the top of the Empire State Building? Airport acrobats? All of it makes me feel so uncomfortable! Also, has anyone else noticed an uptick in people crossing the street whenever they feel like it? I see people fully look up at a green light, then look me in the eyes sitting in my car and wave and then walk. Is there no fear?” ― Balsham

5. Excessive Trauma Posting

“I think that Gen Z can turn even a stressful or traumatic moment into a funny post on TikTok and IG. Us Millennials do that sometimes as well, but Gen Z has a very specific way about it. Their house could be burning down and they’d post on social media ‘first house fire kinda nervous.’ They are so unserious and I find that very entertaining, impressive and stressful all at once haha. (I’m obligated as a millennial to end every sentence with a haha or lol).” ― lifestyle content creator Shaunie Begley

Advertisement

“Social media makes so many of my patients feel like they have to tell their entire life story to be considered ‘authentic’ and to get likes and follows. Sometimes that means they trauma dump publicly, instead of trying it out with a therapist and psychiatrist to process it privately first. Telling your story isn’t as easy as just saying it out loud, especially when public confessions often lead others to tell you their stories, too, or you open yourself up to criticism and trolls. I love that they want to talk about all of these hard topics and break down the stigma of the silence of them, but I just wish they just shared when they were emotionally ready, and not because they thought they were supposed to!” ― Gold

"It’s hard to watch someone wear your old mistakes," said comedian Casey Balsham.
“It’s hard to watch someone wear your old mistakes,” said comedian Casey Balsham.

6. Getting The Majority Of Their News From Social Media

“They love to speak about subjects that they have zero experience in and their information comes from entertainment. They quote TikToks and Reels not understanding that most of the information is clickbait and not backed in facts or actual research.” ― Greivy, lifestyle influencer

7. So Much Millennial Criticism

“Growing up, my generation got called ‘lazy’ a lot by the generations before us. Now, even the generation after us seems to enjoy actively critiquing millennials, especially online! All through TikTok I’ve learned that, according to Gen Z, we aren’t parting our hair ‘correctly,’ we rely too heavily on the French tuck and most recently I saw a video calling out the ‘millennial smile.’ I’ll be completely honest, I did start parting my hair down the middle a few years ago in response! But as I get older, I care less and simply find it amusing. The amount of time Gen Z seems to spend deconstructing millennial characteristics feels… unique.” ― Nausheen Farishta, travel expert and author

Advertisement

“My biggest pet peeve is when Gen Zers criticise or make fun of our ‘dated’ clothing. I don’t remember our generation doing that to Gen Xers when we were in our 20s. And I’m not talking about looking back and laughing at the styles in old photos ― I’m talking about real-time comments in 2026, like pointing out when someone wears ankle socks or still rocks skinny jeans. Honestly, maybe we just don’t want to spend $100 on new jeans every year to keep up with the latest trends. For a generation that claims to care about sustainability, secondhand shopping and reducing clothing waste, it feels a bit hypocritical to judge others for not constantly updating their wardrobes.” ― Nadine Sykora, travel vlogger

8. Entitlement

“One thing I genuinely admire about Gen Z is how intentional they are about work-life balance. Millennials definitely started pushing that conversation, but Gen Z is actually enforcing it. They’re clear about their boundaries, what they want, and what they’re not willing to compromise on ― and I respect that. On the flip side, if I’m being honest, that same confidence can sometimes come across as entitlement. There can be an expectation of flexibility, growth or reward without always putting in the same level of time or grind that previous generations were used to. It’s a shift ― and not always a bad one ― but definitely noticeable. Overall, though, I think Gen Z is challenging norms in a way that’s forcing everyone to rethink how we work, date, and show up in the world ― which is pretty powerful.” ― Erin C., content creator

“They can be easily be discouraged and distracted when working on anything that’s not their personal interest! Blaming others for their lack of skill and experience instead of seeing it as a learning curve. And they also tend to take everything personal ‘why bother if it doesn’t serve me’ mentality it drives me crazy!” ― Greivy

Advertisement

9. Posting Without Filters

“You’d think what stresses me out most is the recycling of 2000s fashion ― low-rise jeans, capris, platform sandals ― but it’s actually the casual posting with minimal curation. As millennials, perfectionism, overthinking and curation are basically in our DNA. The 2010 era was all about aesthetically cohesive feeds and matching Ludwig filters. I’ve gotten better at posting on the fly, but I genuinely admire Gen Z’s ability to post whatever they want, whenever they want.” ― Kate Steinberg, social media personality

10. Confusing Communication At Work

“As Gen Z establishes itself in the workplace, there’s a learning curve on all sides. As the first generation of ‘digital natives’, the way Gen Z communicates (or doesn’t) at work could prove not only annoying but also confusing to their colleagues. I’ve been brought in to lead workshops for Gen Z in corporate settings on what effective communication and executive presence look like on the road to success, while we also explore ways to stay true to themselves along the way.” ― Farishta

Advertisement

“Their communication style can be a bit confusing for millennials. They use completely different emojis, memes and online shorthand, which sometimes makes it hard to understand what they mean right away.” ― Valerie Melnikova, comedian

11. Constant Social Media Immersion

“I’d say their relationship with social media is… a lot. And that’s coming from someone in the influencer space. There’s a level of constant immersion that can feel overwhelming at times ― like, log off and go touch grass for a second.” ― Erin C.

“I feel a deep sadness for them that they have no idea what life was like before social media when you just lived life for yourself and the moment and didn’t need to have a discourse with friends about what to post or who is watching your stories. I don’t think a single Gen Zer has ever been to a beach without posting a picture of their knees. Never has a glass of rosé been drank that wasn’t photographed. An Aperol spritz in Italy has never gone unstoried. There’s something about this need for attention that is deeply stressful” ― Balsham

Advertisement

Answers have been edited and condensed for clarity.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

World Cup referees need ‘FIFA intervention’ to obtain US visas

Published

on

World Cup referees

World Cup referees

It seems that the 2026 World Cup has decided to break an old rule: that referees are the highest authority on the pitch. But the irony this time is that this very authority requires “external intervention” from FIFA simply to overcome an obstacle that has nothing to do with the whistle or video technology… but with visas.

That it has come to requiring FIFA’s coordination to facilitate the entry of elite referees into the United States does not appear to be merely a routine administrative procedure, but rather an indication of the scale of complexity surrounding the upcoming tournament, where football extends beyond the white lines and enters the labyrinth of international bureaucracy with all its cumbersome details.

World Cup referees struggling with visas

Some selected World Cup referees from Arab and African countries faced visa delays, so FIFA intervened directly: it sent official correspondence and documents to the General Secretariat and provided the referees with special codes to expedite their visa applications. A scenario more akin to an “administrative clearance” process than to preparing an elite refereeing team for a tournament of the World Cup’s magnitude.

The irony here lies not in the procedure itself, but in its implications. The international federation, which imposes the highest standards of discipline on referees—from barring them from officiating friendly matches for participating national teams to strictly controlling their movements—finds itself, at the same time, compelled to intervene to overcome the most basic hurdle: entry into the host country.

Advertisement

This raises a question that goes beyond a mere visa crisis: to what extent have major tournaments become hostage to non-sporting politics? Is ‘preparing for the World Cup’ still solely about technical readiness, or has it transformed into a complex web of procedures, policies and coordination between institutions and nations?

Certainly, the 2026 World Cup, shared between the United States, Canada and Mexico, adds a new layer of complexity to modern football. A tournament managed on three fronts, subject to organisational, diplomatic and logistical considerations no less important than what happens on the pitch.

Ultimately, the visa crisis may not be a major event in itself, but it reveals a striking truth: even the World Cup referees, who are supposed to be the symbol of justice within football, now need ‘facilities of justice’ outside it… before the starting whistle has even blown.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025